Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

On the whole, I think women are treated far too often as second class citizens. And men can definitely be horn dogs that let their little heads do the thinking for them. I'm not trying to be an apologist for men's bad behavior, but I'm concerned that certain aspects of this movement has turned into a witch hunt. Is every sexual advance or even platonic touch a sexual assault?

Today, the French actress Catherine Deneuve penned an open letter, which criticized the #MeToo movement and warned about a new "puritanism" sparked by recent sexual harassment allegations. It was signed by a a group of 100 women which included writers, performers, academics and businesswomen. The letter denounced a "hatred of men and sexuality" and the recent wave of "denunciations."
Men's "freedom to pester" is "indispensable to sexual freedom. Rape is a crime, but insistent or clumsy flirting is not an offense, nor is gallantry macho aggression."

The letter is seeing a backlash by the movement. Deneuve has been atracked as being a priveleged out of touch rich white woman.

I don't know the answer. But it does seem that anyone that attempts to temper the movement in any way is subjecting themselves to unfair retribution.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

As a middle-aged, middle-class, white man, it's not really my prerogative to say whether or not #MeToo has gone too far. I have never been subject to the kind of institutional abuse and/or discrimination that women have suffered and so it would be a bit rich for me to say "OK ladies, you've had your bit of a whine - now shut up".

If Catherine Deneuve thinks things have gone too far then she is perfectly entitled to say so, I'm sure that you can find at least one contrary view to any point within an heterogeneous group of individuals. She's also perfectly entitled to receive any criticism coming her way if that view isn't supported.

"clumsy flirting is not an offense", but then again the line between clumsy flirting and sexual assault and/or bullying isn't a clean one and to a certain extent is also dependent on the parties involved and the relationship between them. Making clumsy advances towards a single person of about the same age in a nightclub may be interpreted by that person very differently than making the same clumsy advances towards a much younger, married, subordinate who really, really, needs the job, in the workplace.

I certainly find the #MeToo movement uncomfortable because it exposes some very ugly truths. Of course there's a danger that it might get hijacked to a certain extent but at the core is the unacceptable treatment of a lot of women by a lot of men. There is a real incentive to play this down which is one of the reasons why Ms Deneuve's comments have been so eagerly seized upon.

On the whole, I think women are treated far too often as second class citizens. And men can definitely be horn dogs that let their little heads do the thinking for them. I'm not trying to be an apologist for men's bad behavior, but I'm concerned that certain aspects of this movement has turned into a witch hunt. Is every sexual advance or even platonic touch a sexual assault?

Today, the French actress Catherine Deneuve penned an open letter, which criticized the #MeToo movement and warned about a new "puritanism" sparked by recent sexual harassment allegations. It was signed by a a group of 100 women which included writers, performers, academics and businesswomen. The letter denounced a "hatred of men and sexuality" and the recent wave of "denunciations."
Men's "freedom to pester" is "indispensable to sexual freedom. Rape is a crime, but insistent or clumsy flirting is not an offense, nor is gallantry macho aggression."

The letter is seeing a backlash by the movement. Deneuve has been atracked as being a priveleged out of touch rich white woman.

I don't know the answer. But it does seem that anyone that attempts to temper the movement in any way is subjecting themselves to unfair retribution.

Yeah, I too agree with this

#metoo

__________________"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

If you look back at the elevatorgate thread(s) you can find several examples of this kind of thing going too far.

And it pisses me off that Franken gave in so easily to being equated with the scumbags that needed to be called out.

OTOH, this needed to happen and the real creeps do need to be outed and ostracized.

I agree (to a point) this needed to happen. It has got out of control though. It seems it's nothing but a witch hunt now. It's got to the point that if you "put some moves on", try to kiss, or have sex with a girl/woman/female, that you risk being accused of something much worse and losing everything. Even if she is enjoying it and going along with it.

James Franco has now been accused. He denied that it happened, but you could tell he was choosing his words carefully. He seemed a bit hesitant to deny it because he knows he's damned if he does and damned if he don't.

One of the women accusing him said just a few months ago that when she meets someone, she immediately starts thinking of ways to ruin their life. She also said that she lied to a guy about being pregnant. I know this does not prove she is lying, but it's damn good evidence.

Then there's something about a 17 year old he invited to a hotel. 17 is the age of consent where it happened. Even though many people have said otherwise or said it's not 17 if the other person is in their 30's. Yes, it may be "creepy" or immoral to some, but it's not illegal.

I can't wait until the wrong person get accused and says enough is enough. Enough with the witch hunt. Enough with blowing this all out of proportion.

So put everything out for everyone to see and expect someone not to be attracted to it or look? If they look or otherwise act on their feelings in any way, they risk being accused of something horrible.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

I'd say #metoo has quite some way to go before it's over. It's starting to affect change, but nowhere enough yet.

When will it be enough? When all sexuality is wiped off the face of the planet? Ok that is a bit drastic I know. Seriously though it's getting to the point where men are going to be terrified to do anything because flirting is now harassment. Which may be ok with some "feminist."

I may get **** for saying this, but I think if a man goes to kiss, grope, exposes himself, or whatever, then all the woman has to do is say stop. If he does not, then it is wrong. If he does stop though, then maybe that should be the end of it. If she is going along with it and any reasonable person would say she is ok with it based on her actions, then you don't get to later cry rape/harassment/assault/or WTF ever. You don't get to agree to do a nude scene for $100 a day and then later cry harassment all because you feel like a slut or otherwise regret doing it.

When will it be enough? When all sexuality is wiped off the face of the planet? Ok that is a bit drastic I know. Seriously though it's getting to the point where men are going to be terrified to do anything because flirting is now harassment. Which may be ok with some "feminist."

It is? I'm a man and I don't feel this way.

Originally Posted by mike81

I may get **** for saying this, but I think if a man goes to kiss, grope, exposes himself, or whatever, then all the woman has to do is say stop. If he does not, then it is wrong. If he does stop though, then maybe that should be the end of it. If she is going along with it and any reasonable person would say she is ok with it based on her actions, then you don't get to later cry rape/ harassment/ assault/or wtf ever.

How about she just presses charges for assault, because that's what what you described is?

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

I may get **** for saying this, but I think if a man goes to kiss, grope, exposes himself, or whatever, then all the woman has to do is say stop.

That puts all the burden on the woman. "How dare you allow yourself to be sexually assaulted, you should have told him to stop !".

Maybe she didn't feel able to tell him to stop because he was in a position of authority and he feared the consequences. Certainly there have been times in the past where I haven't criticised a boss' behaviour to their face because I didn't want to make an enemy of someone with direct influence over my career and prospects. Add layers of being physically intimidated as well and it becomes even more difficult.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

That puts all the burden on the woman. "How dare you allow yourself to be sexually assaulted, you should have told him to stop !".

Maybe she didn't feel able to tell him to stop because he was in a position of authority and he feared the consequences. Certainly there have been times in the past where I haven't criticised a boss' behaviour to their face because I didn't want to make an enemy of someone with direct influence over my career and prospects. Add layers of being physically intimidated as well and it becomes even more difficult.

How about if we men don't "kiss, grope or expose ourselves" ?

I agree that there are situations where it should not happen. Like in a professional situation. I'm talking out during day to day social situations. Are you saying that a man can only do those things if she tells him to? He can never just go with it and try to take it to the next level himself?

The problem is that consensual relations are now being called assault.

No, the problem has that non-consensual relations are being portrayed as consensual so that men can get away with sexual assault. If he unilaterally decides to "take it to the next level" then yes, it's assault.

Just because someone seems content for me to kiss them, doesn't give me carte blanche to stick my hand under their clothing, expose myself in front of them or suggest that we start having sex. Of course it can be difficult to read the "signs" but I suppose it comes down to what one's default setting is. I always assumed "no consent" until it was explicitly granted, it seems that many men assume "consent" until it is withdrawn.

No, it's when it's nonconsensual that it's assault. You know, like the incidents they talk about in #metoo? Not like what you do with your wife.

So you think all the #metoo's are non consensual? It's never some woman who is lying, regretful, or said ok and then later changed her mind? It's never just some woman seemed to be having a good time with the man and he tried to go to the next level or maybe misjudged? You think those guys deserve to get caught up in all this? You think they should be accused of assault?

I agree that there are situations where it should not happen. Like in a professional situation. I'm talking out during say to day social situations. Are you saying that a man can only do those things if she tells him to? He can never just go with it and try to take it to the next level himself?

If you find yourself wondering whether you should strip in front of someone and start to masturbate (a la Weinstein) without a clear indication from the other party that this is what they want to happen then I'd suggest stopping.

I agree that there are situations where it should not happen. Like in a professional situation. I'm talking out during say to day social situations. Are you saying that a man can only do those things if she tells him to? He can never just go with it and try to take it to the next level himself?

Maybe it's me, or I'm just from a different country, but is just lobbing your cock out a normal way of advancing things on a date where you are?

So you think all the #metoo's are non consensual? It's never some woman who is lying, regretful, or said ok and then later changed her mind? It's never just some woman seemed to be having a good time with the man and he tried to go to the next level or maybe misjudged? You think those guys deserve to get caught up in all this? You think they should be accused of assault?

Ah, the poisoning of the well. Find one case of "some woman" and that allows everything else to be swept away because "some woman" spoiled it for all the others .

So you think all the #metoo's are non consensual? It's never some woman who is lying, regretful, or said ok and then later changed her mind?

I don't know. Do you?

Originally Posted by mike81

It's never just some woman seemed to be having a good time with the man and he tried to go to the next level or maybe misjudged? You think those guys deserve to get caught up in all this? You think they should be accused of assault?

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Work is not a place where one should be constantly thinking how can I avoid being alone with this particular colleague. Men do not get told off for not being smiley. Men do not get told to wear high heels and make up as part of their work dress code. I do not want to be decoration and function as a pheromone to attract customers I want to do a job and be paid for that job on the same scale as a man.

If my particular physical assets mean that I can work as a lingerie model, that does not give you permission to comment on my boobs out of work.

The people in the photo above are working, they are subject to a dress code.

If I go out to a club, or a party in my F*** me LBD, and some guy tries to chat me up that is fair does. If some guy who I have never met puts his hand on my ass or tries to kiss me that is not acceptable. I wear something sexy for myself, for my mates, for my SO. A LBD is not a permit to grope.

As the Kevin Spacey issue shows this is an issue with men's behaviour, not an issue with women provoking it.

Yes most men are moral, respect women and behave well. A minority do not and this is a constant daily exhausting drag on your journey through life as a woman.

This is even a drag on your virtual life, I think most women will have been sent a picture of some guy's junk.

Some of my initial reservations with #MeToo were similar to #BlackLivesMatter. It is a sort of nebulous "movement" that latches onto distinct incidents with all the measured judgment and nuanced understanding that one might fit in 140 characters. I agree with the aims, and that the problems they want to address are real, but I do not know whether the method of purging/scapegoating/witchhunting/public judge and jury/whatever you want to call it is effective at bringing about those aims and solving those problems, and it leaves it open to backlash when facts counter to the narrative arrive.

In terms of ideology, I think what was once a call to make victimization visible has been co-opted by busybody/officious/liberal ideology that brought us "enthusiastic consent" and "no-touch" rules for childcare:

Quote:

These events are not just about men and women, and it is not just now. A couple of years ago an LGBT student representative, Annie Teriba, resigned after she was accused of non-consensual sex with another woman. She confessed: ‘I had sex with someone. The other party later informed me that the sex was not consensual. I failed to properly establish consent before every act. I apologise sincerely and profoundly for my actions.’ Teriba also admitted some ‘inappropriate behaviour’ in a nightclub two years’ previously, ‘where I had touched somebody in a sexual manner without their consent’.

We are seeing a new model for sexual relations, as aseptic, cool and contractual, not unlike that of a prostitute and her client. Everything must be discussed in advance and explicitly agreed, and the sex act becomes a playing out of the ‘deal’. The University of Michigan teaches that consent must be ‘verbal or oral, sober, and enthusiastic’, and must be continually obtained: ‘Each of us is responsible for making sure we have consent in every sexual situation… it is important to clarify what your partner feels about the sexual situation before initiating or continuing the sexual activity.’

People are seen as separate, bounded atoms, who do not naturally touch or relate. The ordinary sex act is conceived as a violation, a breaching of these boundaries, which is why it must be agreed so explicitly:

...

This distinction is the key one in defining sexual assault. Assault is a knowing violation of another; it is treating the other as an object, a means to satisfaction of your sex drive. (Indeed, it is sometimes independent of sexual pleasure and is a mere act of violence, or violation, where what is enjoyed is the reduction of the other person to the status of an object.) This was the manner in which Weinstein and other assaulters went about their business. This has nothing to do with passion.

Somehow preying on and grooming underage girls became the same kind of violation as an unappreciated come-on, the same kind of crime.

Another problem is the idea that it is not even what a person does, but how it is interpreted that decides whether or not an action is harassment or not. None of these ideas started with #MeToo, but the seem to have been drawn in to this attempt to create a rather perilous and not-how-humans-function-irl culture that we only see in university and corporate training seminars.

And then of course is the gender warrior meanderings that people go on, which ties into the Twitter aspect of trying to say the edgiest thing possible. I won't waste time on it, given Spacey, but I found it entirely unhelpful.

Another problem with the "movement" is that it seems to focus on certain victims and certain perpetrators, e.g. celebrities, politicians, and business leaders. Obviously there is a theme about "power" in it all, but it can easily become an externally focused thing about "Hollywood" or "Washington" or "Wall Street", and it ignores that the majority of crimes and victims are not in those circumstances.

There is also the problem of what we do about accusations on social media. What does "listen and believe" mean and how far does it go? "Due process"? There is quite a large grey area between shaming victims into silence and tarring and feathering anyone accused of anything, and I don't think anyone has really tried to answer what the right policy is, for fear of the lynch mob coming for them. Naturally this opens the door for hypocrisy like Nancy Pelosi's abysmal fumble.

My initial reaction to the original #MeToo call to action was also mixed. There is a certain shaming element for victims who don't do the "proper" thing, like immediately leave abusive relationships, and there was certain rhetoric around this as well that you are obligated to make public accusations.

__________________As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

All this reminds me of an incident that happened right outside my shop one sunny afternoon.

Two young women (late teens early 20's) were sitting on a footpath bench, chatting. Both were wearing, shall we say, very revealing tops with a neckline that plunged almost to their belly buttons. A man (white male in his 40's as it happens) walks past, looks down at them and gets an eye-full. As he walks away, one of the women stands up and yells something like...

"What are you *********** gawking at, pervert!" The guy stopped in his tracks, turned around and walked right back to her, looking straight down her cleavage. "Only looking at what you're asking me to Honey! If you don't like men looking down your blouse, wear a *********** polo-neck!" She was stunned - he turned and walked away.

Its a sentiment I found difficult to agree disagree with.

__________________► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

All this reminds me of an incident that happened right outside my shop one sunny afternoon.

Two young women (late teens early 20's) were sitting on a footpath bench, chatting. Both were wearing, shall we say, very revealing tops with a neckline that plunged almost to their belly buttons. A man (white male in his 40's as it happens) walks past, looks down at them and gets an eye-full. As he walks away, one of the women stand ups and yells something like...

"What are you *********** gawking at, pervert!" The guy stopped in his tracks, turned around and walked right back to her, looking straight down her cleavage. "Only looking at what you're asking me to Honey! If you don't like men looking down your blouse, wear a *********** polo-neck!" She was stunned - he turned and walked away.

Some of my initial reservations with #MeToo were similar to #BlackLivesMatter. It is a sort of nebulous "movement" that latches onto distinct incidents with all the measured judgment and nuanced understanding that one might fit in 140 characters. I agree with the aims, and that the problems they want to address are real, but I do not know whether the method of purging/scapegoating/witchhunting/public judge and jury/whatever you want to call it is effective at bringing about those aims and solving those problems, and it leaves it open to backlash when facts counter to the narrative arrive.

In terms of ideology, I think what was once a call to make victimization visible has been co-opted by busybody/officious/liberal ideology that brought us "enthusiastic consent" and "no-touch" rules for childcare:

Somehow preying on and grooming underage girls became the same kind of violation as an unappreciated come-on, the same kind of crime.

Another problem is the idea that it is not even what a person does, but how it is interpreted that decides whether or not an action is harassment or not. None of these ideas started with #MeToo, but the seem to have been drawn in to this attempt to create a rather perilous and not-how-humans-function-irl culture that we only see in university and corporate training seminars.

And then of course is the gender warrior meanderings that people go on, which ties into the Twitter aspect of trying to say the edgiest thing possible. I won't waste time on it, given Spacey, but I found it entirely unhelpful.

Another problem with the "movement" is that it seems to focus on certain victims and certain perpetrators, e.g. celebrities, politicians, and business leaders. Obviously there is a theme about "power" in it all, but it can easily become an externally focused thing about "Hollywood" or "Washington" or "Wall Street", and it ignores that the majority of crimes and victims are not in those circumstances.

There is also the problem of what we do about accusations on social media. What does "listen and believe" mean and how far does it go? "Due process"? There is quite a large grey area between shaming victims into silence and tarring and feathering anyone accused of anything, and I don't think anyone has really tried to answer what the right policy is, for fear of the lynch mob coming for them. Naturally this opens the door for hypocrisy like Nancy Pelosi's abysmal fumble.

My initial reaction to the original #MeToo call to action was also mixed. There is a certain shaming element for victims who don't do the "proper" thing, like immediately leave abusive relationships, and there was certain rhetoric around this as well that you are obligated to make public accusations.

Preying on or grooming underaged girls is not the same crime as sexual assault on a grown up. They are categorized and punished differently.

#metoo isn't about people who prey and groom children. It's specifically about the sexist structures in our society that allows sexual abuse in the work place. It's been a long time coming, and it's having a real effect.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

According to some, that man should now be shamed and loose everything.

Originally Posted by uke2se

According to whom, specifically?

I don't know, but perhaps that 40-year old might pause next time he's tempted to "ogle". I think it highlights the difference in attitude between the man in the anecdote and me. He assumed that those young ladies were dressed in that way in order to have 40-year old men ogle them - I wouldn't have made that assumption because:

They were dressed that way please themselves, not me

Even if they were attempting to attract "ogling" attention, then it wouldn't be from the likes of me

Again I think it comes down to the fact that many (most ?) men presume consent until it's denied (and in the case of the anecdote will even then question the denial) whereas I've always presumed "no consent" until it is supplied.

Which is not to say I wouldn't have ogled - I don't know if I would or wouldn't - but I would have been suitably ashamed if I'd been called on it rather than telling the young women that in effect "they were asking for it"

I don't know, but perhaps that 40-year old might pause next time he's tempted to "ogle". I think it highlights the difference in attitude between the man in the anecdote and me. He assumed that those young ladies were dressed in that way in order to have 40-year old men ogle them - I wouldn't have made that assumption because:

They were dressed that way please themselves, not me

Even if they were attempting to attract "ogling" attention, then it wouldn't be from the likes of me

Again I think it comes down to the fact that many (most ?) men presume consent until it's denied (and in the case of the anecdote will even then question the denial) whereas I've always presumed "no consent" until it is supplied.

Which is not to say I wouldn't have ogled - I don't know if I would or wouldn't - but I would have been suitably ashamed if I'd been called on it rather than telling the young women that in effect "they were asking for it"

Here we go again. We are all supposed to pretend that we do not have sexual urges or that we are not attracted to each other's parts. We are not supposed to ever look (even for a second) when someone has their parts out in public. Give me a *********** break. This what I mean by it going too far.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.